PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 11116676

Why do older workers have problems with technology?

T Stewart
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Why do older workers seem to have problems with technology? In this paper, I will review several possible reasons and illustrate them with evidence, often anecdotal, from our work as ergonomics practitioners. We find that older workers have more to "unlearn" from their accumulated experience. They may suffer from gradual or not so gradual ailing faculties of sight, hearing, dexterity, stamina, memory, and reaction time. They may exhibit a fear of making mistakes, and they may have strongly established preferences and pessimism about technological gimmicks. But the real problem is often that the designers have failed to anticipate the requirements of their users; they have failed to design for a range of abilities broader than their own; they have failed to test their designs with real people; and they have failed to learn from the experience of the market. Getting design right for older users is really only a continuation of getting design right for all.

Explore related subjects

Activities of Daily LivingAgedAttitudeEmploymentErgonomicsFearGeriatric AssessmentHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHealth StatusHumansNeeds AssessmentOccupational HealthTechnologyWorkJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

T Stewart. 1997. Why do older workers have problems with technology?. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11116676/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2002

Randomized clinical trial of magnesium, diazepam, or both after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of interventions aimed at improving neurologic outcome after cardiac arrest. METHODS: The authors conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial with factorial design to see if magnesium, diazepam, or both, when given immediately following resuscitation from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, would increase the proportion of patients awakening, defined as following commands or having comprehensible speech. If the patient regained a systolic blood pressure of at least 90 mm Hg and had not awakened, paramedics injected IV two syringes stored in a sealed kit. The first always contained either 2 g magnesium sulfate (M) or placebo (P); the second contained either 10 mg diazepam (D) or P. Awakening at any time by 3 months was determined by record review, and independence at 3 months was determined by telephone calls. Over 30 months, 300 patients were randomized in balanced blocks of 4, 75 each to MD, MP, PD, or PP. The study was conducted under waiver of consent. RESULTS: Despite the design, the four treatment groups differed on baseline variables collected before randomization. Percent awake by 3 months for each group were: MD, 29.3%; MP, 46.7%; PD, 30.7%; PP, 37.3%. Percent independent at 3 months were: MD, 17.3%; MP, 34.7%; PD, 17.3%; PP, 25.3%. Significant interactions were lacking. After adjusting for baseline imbalances, none of these differences was significant, and no adverse effects were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Neither magnesium nor diazepam significantly improved neurologic outcome from cardiac arrest.

Activities of Daily Living↗
PubMed2002

The cochrane review of advice to stay active as a single treatment for low back pain and sciatica.

STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review was conducted within the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of advice to stay active as a single treatment for patients with acute low back pain or sciatica. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Low back pain is a common reason for consulting a health care provider, and advice on daily activities constitutes an important part in the primary care management of low back pain. METHODS: All randomized studies available in systematic searches (electronic databases, contact with authors, reference lists) were included. Two reviewers independently selected trials for inclusion, assessed the validity of the included trials, and extracted data. Investigators were contacted to obtain missing information. RESULTS: Four trials, with a total of 491 patients, were included. In all the trials, advice to stay active was compared with advice for bed rest. Two trials were assessed as having a low risk of bias, and two as having a moderate to high risk of bias. The results were heterogeneous. The results from one high-quality trial of patients with acute, simple low back pain found small differences in functional status (weighted mean difference on a 0 to 100 scale, 6.0; 95% CI, 1.5-10.5) and length of sick leave (weighted mean difference, 3.4 days; 95% CI, 1.6-5.2) in favor of staying active, as compared with advice to stay in bed 2 days. The other high-quality trial compared advice to stay active with advice to rest in bed 14 days for patients with sciatic syndrome, and found no differences between the groups. One of the high-quality trials also compared advice to stay active with advice to engage in exercises for patients with acute, simple low back pain, and found improvement in functional status and reduced sick leave in favor of advice to stay active. CONCLUSION: The best available evidence suggests that advice to stay active alone has little beneficial effect for patients with acute, simple low back pain, and little or no effect for patients with sciatica. There is no evidence that advice to stay active is harmful for either acute low back pain or sciatica. Because there is no considerable difference between advice to stay active and advice for bed rest, and there are potential harmful effects of prolonged bed rest, it is reasonable to advise people with acute low back pain and sciatica to stay active. These conclusions are based on single trials.

Activities of Daily Living↗